Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

Loa Andersson <> Wed, 13 April 2016 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C6A12E0BF for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:51:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ci7k38TMA01Y for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AD3C12E086 for <>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 04:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DFEB180158D; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:50:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, IETF discussion list <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Loa Andersson <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:50:48 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:51:03 -0000


On 2016-04-13 10:08, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Cherry-picking a few points:
> On 13/04/2016 00:46, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> ...
>> And the difficulties/expense of travel are only going to get worse
>> for the forseeable future: they're not going to get better.
> That is indisputable.
> On 13/04/2016 00:49, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Let us say that we set aside enough time about half way between two IETF
>> meetings and schedule all the meetings, as requested by wg chairs or
>> people in charge of other meetings, as a long series.
> That won't work with 4-monthly meetings as today. It might work with
> 6-monthly meetings.

I'm inclined to agree. It would be, unless we are willing to throw
over board the tradition with 3 f2f meetings per year the same as saying
that remote IETF meetings are not on the agenda.

There are many reasons why we need the f2f meetings, I would not be
willing to give that mode of operation up.


>> Let us assume that the wg meetings is on average 1.5 hours, scheduling
>> 100 wg meetings would require 150 hours.
> I think that's optimistic. Remote meetings go more slowly due to technology
> glitches and the need for more formal patterns of Q/A. It's still faster than
> email though (see Alia's message).
> On 13/04/2016 03:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I believe that there would be a real cost in moving to remote-only meetings.
>> Even putting aside the time zone difficulties, and the reduced effectiveness
>> of in-meeting interaction, there are aspects of face-to-face interaction
>> taht current remote technologies simply do not capture.
> Yes. I've been on a one-meeting-per-year model once or twice for personal
> reasons and it is *inferior* to attending every meeting. Some people
> can manage to time shift their lives for a week for remote participation,
> but most people can't; family, day job, and sunshine combine against it.
> The time zone issue is exclusionary. Also, there is nothing like the
> intensity of being on site with everybody.
> Not to say that we shouldn't improve even more on what we can do
> with Meetecho. But an important part of being able to make the best
> use of remote participation is *knowing* the people at the other
> end from previous in-person meetings.
>> It was very helpful in BA (and at many previous IETF meetings) to be able
>> to find time to talk with a small number of people concerned about an
>> aspect of one working group. I did that over meals, breaks, etc. It
>> sorted out issues far more effectively than email conversations (in several
>> cases, we had tried to sort it out via email. 10 minutes face-to-face
>> clarified what was being missed, and found a good path forward.)
> On 13/04/2016 04:00, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> This is all true, but the idea that it can't be replicated online is silly.
>> How did you arrange to have lunch with these people? You went looking
>> for them, rounded them up, and sat down to lunch. You can do that online
>> as well.
> You can, but it's a much more deliberate action and you're less
> likely to get serendipity effects. I would probably have been in
> some of those discussions in BA that Joel mentioned, but unfortunately
> I was on the wrong side of the world and fast asleep.
> IMHO we need the right blend of in-person and virtual meetings, and
> we'll find that blend by progressive change, not by revolution.
>     Brian